home

Drilling Down Into The Poll Numbers: FL, PA and OH

We now have ARG joining Quinnipiac in putting Obama ahead in Florida. To me this is the most stunning and welcome development of the general election campaign and I am wondering how it happened. I have seen no major campaigning by Obama in Florida, no ad blitz, no nothing really, to explain it.

So I want to drill down into the numbers a bit to consider what is going on. The Q-Poll has the following demographic breakdown for Florida:

Florida women likely voters back Obama 50 - 40 percent, while men go 47 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama. White voters back McCain 50 - 40 percent while black voters back Obama 95 - 4 percent. Obama leads 57 -35 percent with voters 18 to 34 years old; he splits 48 - 46 percent with McCain among voters 35 to 54, and 44 - 46 percent with voters over 55.

Let's compare that to Florida 2004:

Bush won whites (70% of the electorate) 57-42; Kerry won African American (12% of the electorate) 86-13; and Bush won Hispanics (15% of the electorate) 56-44. Bush won Florida by 4 points.

It is surprising that Q does not provide the Latino breakout, but for the sake of argument let's assume a 56-44 split for McCain. The real story here is Obama capturing 40% of the white vote. The 95-4 on the African American vote will, imo, hold up in virtually every state for Obama. The real issue is will the 40% of the white vote hold up? John Kerry captured 42% of the white vote so it SHOULD be possible.

ARG has Obama within 3 of McCain with the white vote in Florida:

McCain leads Obama 48% to 45% among white voters (73% of likely voters). Obama leads McCain 88% to 8% among African American voters (11% of likely voters). And McCain leads Obama 50% to 41% among Hispanic voters (16% of likely voters).

Now let's dig into the Q poll's Ohio numbers:

Obama leads 51 - 39 percent among Ohio women likely voters, while men go 46 percent for McCain and 45 percent for Obama. White voters also are narrowly divided with 47 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama, but Obama commands black voters 90 - 6 percent. The Democrat also leads 58 - 36 percent among voters 18 to 34 and 49 - 42 percent among voters 35 to 54, while McCain has the 47 - 43 percent edge among voters over 55.

Let compare to Ohio 2004:

Bush won whites (86% of the electorate) 56-44. Kerry won African Americans (10% of the electorate) 83-16 and Latinos (3% of the electorate) 65-35. Bush won Ohio by 2 points.

Again, while Obama is assured of winning African Americans by 95-5 in Ohio and probably increasing turnout, the real story here will be if Obama can match or exceed Kerry's share of the white vote in Ohio. If he can, he will win Ohio easily.

Finally, in Pennsylvania, the Q poll says:

Obama tops McCain 57 - 34 percent with women as men go 47 percent for McCain to 45 percent for Obama. Obama leads 61 - 33 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, 51 - 41 percent among voters 35 to 54 and 48 - 43 percent with voters over 55. The Democrat inches ahead 47 - 44 percent among white voters and leads among black voters 95 - 1 percent.

(Emphasis supplied.) The funny number is the 95-1 African American split but it is realistic to me. Obama will capture 19 of every 20 African American vote cast and there will be more African American votes cast in this election than in any other in history. But the important number is the white vote. Q has Obama LEADING among whites in Pennsylvania. Let's compare to Pennsylvania 2004:

Bush won whites (82% of the electorate) 54-45. Kerry won African Americans (13% of the vote) 86-13 and Latinos (35 of the vote) 72-28. Kerry won Pennsylvania by 2.

To win Pennsylvania, Obama need only match Kerry's performance with white voters (45%). Right now, in the Q poll, he exceeds it. If that holds up, Pennsylvania is safe. And I believe it is.

What is the upshot of all this data? To me it is pretty simple - McCain and the Republican will have to play the race card to have a chance. they have to push down Obama's appeal to white voters to have a chance. They always do of course. But now they must do it against a vigilant Media who are supporting Obama. A tough road to travel for the Straight talk Express.

But the prospect of a landslide loss is staring them in the face.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Divergence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Two words. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    And they may not be well received around here, but whatever: Unity Bounce.

    Obama had been underperforming the D vs. R fundamentals in his polling.  Now it appears his numbers are reflecting them better -- America just doesn't want another Republican president.

    In order to win this election, McCain's going to need Obama to wet the bed.

    don't underestimate the Obama ground game (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    That worked for them in the primary, no reason to be rid of it.

    If Hillary comes out for him big, the women will put him over the top. No question Hillary's endorsement is showing up in the polls. Its a good thing, but I'm still sad about it.

    Parent

    400 Obama Fellows (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by 1jane on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    have been sent to Florida. The Obama grassroots oganizing will go to a whole new level. Florida will go to Obama.

    Parent
    She said she would 'do her part' ... (4.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    ... along with other Dems, but I think it remains to be seen what happens after the convention.

    I hope she's enjoying her well-earned rest. She worked like a champ despite the unprecedented hobbling by her own party and deserves a place of honor in the Dem Hall of Fame.

    Parent

    These numbers make me think a (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by sarissa on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    female VP pick like Sebilius (sic?) could really put the nail in the coffin or that McCain will go female as well given how that segment of the vote is apparently killing him.

    It seems Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    in his heart of hearts wants to put Sebelius on the ticket.  She is from Kansas, as is his white gradparents....Midwestern he trusts....

    But he needs someone with a higher profile....Biden would be good--he skewered Rudy pretty good again today...Or Clark....

    Parent

    Sebelius?? (none / 0) (#50)
    by smott on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    On the SUSA polls I've been following, Sebelius is the only one that can really flip wins for BO into losses...

    Edwards gave BO the most bounce vs McCain.

    And for McCain, survey says...the Huckster!

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    But that may be just name recognition....

    He needs someone to needle McCain, take him on rhetorically.....Biden would be great at that.....Clark could really take McCain apart on foreign policy.

    Parent

    Biden: Right, because (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    nothing quite says Change like putting a guy on the ticket who's been in the senate since before the Senate Watergate Comm'ee began its hearings.

    Clark would be great if he'd only lasted longer as a viable candidate in 04.  As I recall that one, he came out of the starting blocks with tremendous pre-annoucement momentum and proceeded, on Day One, to fumble an easy and obvious question about how he would have voted on Iraq.

    He also is not exactly deeply steeped in domestic issues.

    Though, once again, compared to certain other choices available these two would be far preferable.

    Parent

    so McCain raises Condi Rice to the Dems (none / 0) (#59)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    female, it would split the AA vote. Oy vey.

    Parent
    I doubt it would be Rice (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    You can bet they can see the ads run with her testifying to the 9-11 Commission on the horizon with that choice.

    Parent
    Condi hearts Barack (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    She was blushing around him during her confirmation hearing....Obama voted for her, and she has repaid the courtesy by saying it is remarkable he won the nomination, and during the Wright fiasco talked about slavery being the birth defect in our nation's founding....

    And, Condi's pro-choice.  So, nix that.

    Carly Fiorina, maybe, but she's not all that warm and fuzzy.

    Gingrich wants Jindal--arch conservative (he has written of personally participating in an exorcism and how faith promoting that was) but ethnically diverse.....Only 36 or some such....

    Parent

    I'd love for McC to tap Condi -- (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    it would bring into further relief the clear fact that he's running for Bush's 3d term.  And her pro-choice predilections raise some interesting possibilities for intraparty dissension and annoyed Rs staying away from the polls in droves.

    This one though is shaping up to be an election where McC will probably find it necessary to make a bold move for VP, since the issues and the economic/political conditions are working strongly against him.

    No Jindal -- far too young and inexperienced (there goes the decent argument against Obama), serves to further highlight, by stark contrast, the considerable age of McCain himself, and has no broad-based appeal outside of his home state.  

    An anti-choice non-nutcase woman senator or governor for McCain, would be my guess.

    Parent

    Please let it be Liddy Dole n/t (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    appears like a lot of wasted energy now.

    The reasons are very simple (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    The Republican brand is in the trash right now.  It is at historically low levels.  

    It will get worse as we get closer to the election.  Sure there will be some ebbs and flows, but Obama will continue to gain a bigger and bigger lead.

    This could be a win of 1932 proportions.

    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    It's not so much that Obama is winning, it's that McCain, like Republicans everywhere, is losing.

    Parent
    Well don't lose sight of the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by abfabdem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    the RNC has over $50MM in their warchest and the DNC barely $4MM.  

    Parent
    I'd love that (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    to be true, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.  This is just the beginning of what is going to be a looong summer.  I hope Obama is going to be able to weather whatever the Rs throw at him during this campaign.  I believe he will, but if he ever treats this race as anything other than a squeaker, he is going to be in trouble.

    Parent
    I agree that the Republican (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    brand is at its nadir.  The tragic flooding in the Midwest is going to hit every American, due to massive crop damage.  Sharply rising food prices, energy prices through the roof, and a continued housing slump spell disaster for Republicans.  

    However, this is not a cake walk for Dems.  The 527 slime machines will be working overtime from Labor Day onward.  Obama does have less experience than McCain, a small percentage of women and Latinos may switch parties or skip the race, and younger voters tend to need a lot more encouragement to turn out at the polls.  I believe the race card will be played by the 527s in the South and Southwest.  

    I think the most problematic issue for Obama is being tarred with the "inexperienced" brush on the issue of national security.  That is the strong suit for the Republicans, and I hope team Obama is preparing for it now.      

       

    Parent

    I know BTB says... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by smott on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    ....it's all in the demographics...

    But it may be that McCain's stepping in it in FL by hyping off shore drilling. I'm no Floridian but from what little I know that is highly unpopular politically....

    The Republicans say there have been no oil spills (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    Maybe not a mega spill like the Exxon Valdez, but there are always little spills....

    The oceans of coastal California are dying.....The oldtimers talk of abalone, kelp forests and sea otters all up-and-down the coast....Not anymore....

    Parent

    Orcas endangered, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    coastal salmon fishing restricted now...

    Parent
    McCain is old enough to remember (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by magster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill from off-shore drilling. Footage from this spill would make a good commercial in Florida.

    Only 10 million barrels....

    Parent

    I thought there was already off-shore drilling (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    off the coast of FL.

    Parent
    This is an underreported fact (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by magster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    that I hope gets more attention.  Sen. Tester was talking about underutilized leases already authorized on oil fields on the ND-MT border.

    The oil companies are just land-grabbing.

    Parent

    its my understanding these lands harbor (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    huge crude oil holdings, in the billions, but the technology isn't yet available to get at them.

    America has huge resources but unattainable. Hard to believe. NOT! Just like they held off on gas  efficient cars until recently.

    Parent

    Diary on your point at Kos (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    hey could you copy some of the finer points (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    off that diary sos we don't have to bother ?  ;)

    Parent
    You're Correct (none / 0) (#62)
    by Niffari on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    The oil companies are looking for anything that helps them scam the American people out of more money. I'm pretty surprised though that there were any Floridian politicans willing to go along with this plan.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    Crist is now talking about his girlfriend publicly. He wants to be VP bad. Changing his position on off shore drilling is no stretch at all.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    now that is way different from talking publicly, girlfriend!


    Parent
    Do a little homework (none / 0) (#180)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    not sure what that means (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    but there have been rumors about his orientation for years.

    Parent
    Ok I mis-understood you (none / 0) (#184)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    My apologies.

    Parent
    no problem (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    I am often to ambiguous for my own good.  but I know one when I see one.

    Parent
    California Pacific Rim (none / 0) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    I thought it was Alaska and the Pacific Rim they want. BTW, as I understand it, the oil there is not the type we need for cars. So we would end up exporting it as we do the Alaskan Pipe Line.

    And for  those of you living in Souther California, have you noticed the derricks in people's back yards while driving up Interstate 5? They are the little dinosaur types.

    Parent

    Today's Tallahassee Democrat (none / 0) (#197)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    Crist is now for the lifting of the federal moratorium.  This is today's paper:

    With pain at the pump hurting Florida's tourist economy and new technologies making offshore drilling safer, Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday coastal states should be free of a federal moratorium on oil and gas exploration.

    Jubilant Florida Democrats pounced on Crist's support of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's position as a retreat on offshore oil drilling -- long a sacred cow in Florida politics. The state Democratic Party produced a list of previous Crist quotes and positions stating his opposition to offshore rigs.

    Crist said he agrees with McCain that "it should be left up to individual states to make the final decision" on oil and natural-gas exploration.


    Parent

    Really good and surprising polls (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    The polls may reflect the 4% lead he has in national polls.

    It is astonishing he has any lead at all; his candidacy was always so improbable.

    McCain may begin to feel he needs what he views as a Hail Mary--Jindal as VP; but right now he is flip-flopping his way into Bush's positions, and is clearly going the wrong way.

    Obama needs to go to Europe (at least Germany if not France) when he goes to Iraq and Afghanistan.  A trip to the Knesset is a must too.  He will receive a rousing welcome from the Germans who think he is JFK--the contrast with Bush's recent boring trip will be unmistakable.  And, the enthusiasm of Germany and Europe for Obama will show that people love America for its ideals, not its bombing campaigns; and Obama would be able to credibly show that he has the better chance over McCain of enlisting German and NATO support in Afghanistan.

    Well, excuuuuuuse me... (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    but if he wants NATO support in Afghanistan, maybe he should call a subcommittee meeting or something...ya know?  Isn't that the point of being chair?  Maybe hold a g. d. hearing or two (if he's not too busy).  

    Won't be long before McCain brings THAT up...and rightly so...and the longer he goes without ever having convened a substantive meeting of a committee he lobbied to chair re national security, the more vulnerable he is to McCain and the 527s on that subject.

    Big mistake.  Huge.

    Parent

    He has conducted (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    subcommitte hearings--not just the one hearing on the ambasssdorship for the guy who funded the swifboating of Kerry--but a substantive hearing a few weeks ago.

    And, I do not think that the subcommittee has jurisdiction over NATO issues--it is not all that powerful a subcommittee.

    Parent

    You are mistaken. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    Caution: you also may be labeled a (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    "contrarian."

    Parent
    pfft (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    hasnt seemed to slow you down.

    Parent
    Actually, it did for a couple hours as I (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    couldn't come up w/a suitably snappy rejoinder.

    Parent
    what is the margin of error (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    In FL we seem to have fallen (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    into an election dead zone since the end of the Dem primaries. I have seen very little news of either candidate.  I don't think the GE campaign has really begun here yet.

    But to be starting from a dead start ahead of McCain is indeed great news.

    I don't trust the FL data (4.00 / 1) (#200)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    I was a Voting Rights Attorney for Kerry in Northern FL.  While there are many registered Dems there, they overwhelmingly voted Repub and do so in the Presidential elections. They have one issue only (or at least then did) and that was abortion.  They register as Dems for local elections more than anything else.  This was all explained to me by the Election Commissioner and her staff. Note, I spent a week doing this.  I would be shocked if this region voted for Obama.  In the primaries they went overwhlmingly for Edwards.  It is more like the South than what people perceive as Florida today. These are people who have been there for generations.  I also note there is no breakdown fo rthe Latino vote either.

    Parent
    Can't we just be blunt (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    and admit that this election entirely comes down to the swift boats?  And BTD you are actually pretty blunt at the end of your post.  But seriously, the R's never stood a chance in this election given political conditions unless the Dems ran a fatally flawed candidate that could be undone by a negative campaign.

     My gut still tells me that Obama is that fatally flawed candidate (and it isn't race per se, though race is inextricably bound up in Obama's problems of inexperience and radical roots).  But there will be absolutely no way of knowing that until after the conventions when the swiftboats pull up anchor.  Either they will be effective or they won't.  Tough to know how American voters are going to reconcile their disgust with Bush with their misgivings about turning the keys to the car over to a novice who has always run with a scary crowd.  My money is on the latter being more powerful than the former, but I've never beaten the House at anything, so I could be wrong.  We shall see.

    I don't know about that. Look how the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    primaries went. Obama's brand really tanked  with Democrats towards the end, as voters got to know him better. I'm sure that most voters still need to get to know Obama. The things Hillary said mildly--e.g. about Obama's appalling lack of relevant experience---will be stated bluntly as fact from now on. Obama will do fine, if voters don't look at him closely. If they do, then it will be a tough choice.

    Parent
    End of the primaries as ominous foreshadowing? (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    I admit that is how I looked at them.  As those deeply tuned in to the primary campaign got a closer look at Obama his fortunes started to fade.  He really limped across the finish line.  Was that the Wright/BitterCling effect, or the effect of an opponent that finally got her groove on and just blew his doors off at the end, or just the nature of the calendar that had fortuitously front-loaded all his good states?  Maybe all the above?  In any event, he'll need to be sure not to replicate that fade in the GE.  

    Taking a closer look at the factors that dogged him late in the primary:

    1. Wright/BitterCling - If this is the fundamental explanation for his late primary fade, then I think he is toast in the GE.  The swiftboats will only magnify these character issues.

    2. A superior opponent - Is McCain as likely as Clinton to find a phenomenal groove and just come to dominate in debates and stump performances and closing ads.  I'm skeptical on this.  I think McCain has room for improvement, and if he can outmaneuver Obama and get him into settings like Town Halls, he may have a chance.  And the media is a big wildcard in this.  This is the battle of two darlings.  The press is going to have to turn on one of them.

    3. Calendar - Obama was one lucky sob when it came to the primary calendar.  Good territory for him was frontloaded and he got unbelievably lucky with the disenfranchisement of MI and FL.  I seriously doubt he'd be the nominee today if those states had been regular contests all along.  Of course everybody votes at once (and no caucuses!) in the GE, but the calendar issue from the primary highlights the changing demos from state to state.  As BTD says, demographics are destiny.  I guess we just need to figure out how Appalachian every electoral rich state is, and we might get a good sense of the expected outcome come November.


    Parent
    PA and OH are quite appalachian (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    so Obama really needs his leads in those states to hold. If McCain is going to play the race card, it will be in the Pittsburgh media market.

    Parent
    Well, McCain does not look strong (none / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    right now. I would say that has a lot to do with Obama's poll numbers.

    Parent
    What is the color of the sky in your world? (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    By the end of May, Obama had a comfortable lead against Hillary among Democrats nationally.  His lead hit its high water mark in May.  

    Parent
    The primary voters overwhelmingly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    rejected him in several later states. The national ratings are essentially meaningless, right? That is especially true when the primaries are finishing.
    Obama got less than 10% of the vote in many counties of KY---that is just unbelievable.

    Parent
    Nice job cherrypicking (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    In 2 states where a black man is NEVER going to win, he lost badly.  Surprise!  

    National numbers are extremely good for judging.....  Democratic support for the candidates which was what you specifically referenced.   Why didn't the voters of Oregon reject Obama?  

    Parent

    Oh, there's PA and IN too. (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    and OH.

    Parent
    for the umpteenth time (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    would you please consider the possibility that OH, PA, et al, did not reject Obama, but rather chose Hillary as the better of two good candidates?  Look, Hillary won in NY and CA, too, but does anyone in a million years think that Obama is in danger in NY or CA?

    OH and PA ware Dem primaries.  Just because Obama was the second choice doesn't mean they would pick McCain over Obama.

    See Pollster.com on Ohio to see a trend line that pretty favorable towards Obama, and see Pollster.com in Penn. for even better news.

    Does this mean he wins those two states in Nov?  Not necessarily, but it's sure better to be ahead and have trend lines going up at this time, than the reverse.

    Parent

    McCain didn't insult huge groups of voters (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    ... with belittling, degrading names as Obama has.

    All the Repugs have to do is put those actual degrading labels in a loop with Obama whining to McCain to stop the ancillary comments about Michelle Obama.

    Or they could just loop Obama's own considerably more vicious treatment of Sen. Clinton.

    No one has to approve that message for it to come across loud and clear.

    Parent

    if that's the case (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    then why are Obama's poll so good (granted, it's early, but the polls look good)?

    Further, some think that going negative is just not going to work nearly as well in the past (e.g., both Gingrich and Huckabee have been publicly telling McCain to start promoting something positive, rather than think they will win by going negative)

    We've got a long way to go.  But if you think that "all the Repugs have to do is xyz" to win, I think you're mistaken.  It will take a whole lot more than that.

    Parent

    Yup going negative's ALWAYS never supposed to work (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    Strangely, gloopy Unity Hopey Changey messages directly contradicted by a slick politician's actions and deeds sicken people just as efficiently.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    ... with belittling, degrading names as Obama has.

    What?  Calling some woman "Sweetie" on one occasion?  That's worse than calling your wife a name that can't be repeated on TalkLeft?

    Looks like "some people" have been wrong about everything - especially that women and blue collar workers in Ohio and PA would not support Obama.  And now Florida.

    These polls point to a potential landslide.

    Parent

    Way too early to predict that (none / 0) (#214)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    And a few national polls, too... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    ... that show Obama with a significant lead over Hillary in pretty much every poll taken from April on.  The late states aren't any more indicative of "Obama's brand tanking" than the early states were of a "Clinton collapse".  They're different states.

    Guys, can we please stop fighting this ridiculous primary.  It's over.  Move on.  If you don't think Obama can win, but want him to, try to help.  If you don't want him to win, there's a different candidate you can support.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    He lost Indiana by 1 point.  PA and OH were good wins for Hillary but hardly an indication that the voters "rejected" Obama.  

    Parent
    Blue, what is the color in your world? (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by davnee on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    Clinton did a phenomenal job chasing Obama down and passing him right by against a media and money headwind of epic proportion.  She notably reduced his margins in slam dunk states like NC and OR, even beat him on his own favored territory in places like IN and SD, held off every conceivable attempt he made to close her out in the big battlegrounds like TX, OH and PA, and dealt him astonishing humiliations in WV, KY, and PR.  She won far more votes and delegates at the end of the process than he did.  She sprinted across the finish line and he limped.  That's just the way it is.  But because she limped and he sprinted out of the gates to start, that gave us a photo finish ending, that the SD's called in Obama's favor.  But you can't pretend he wasn't the one sucking more wind waiting for the call.

    But none of this matters now, because he's the nominee.  So we all have to deal with it.  But let's not pretend there are not lessons to be learned from the way Clinton was able to chase him down at the end.  Don't you want your nominee to learn from the primary close call and not repeat the same mistakes or fall prey to the same shortcomings?

    Parent

    This is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    What we don't know is how effective the Republican attacks will be; it is the unknown X in this equation, depending on products of their oppo research of which we are not yet aware.

    To me, this election represents an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. The irresistible force is the strong desire of most American voters to throw the the Republican Party out of office in the Presidency. The immovable object is the deep vulnerabilities and basic unlikability of the Democratic candidate.  Which of the two will prevail? It's just impossible to tell.

    To me, though, it is beyond tragic that, in terms of basic traits favoring electability, we have put up the worst Democratic candidate since at least the 50s. Obama in any other election cycle would be trounced: he is worse than Dukakis, worse than Carter when running for his second term, worse than Mondale, and, I think, even worse than McGovern.

    And the real problem is that if Obama's elected, those problems don't go away. When the tide of disgust against the status quo gets turned, as finally it will, from being against the ruling Republicans to being against the ruling Democrats, all of those vulnerabilities and unlikable traits in Obama will once again come to the fore.

    Then it will not be a fun time to be a Democrat.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    How terrible a candidate can you be if you came out of nowhere to beat the biggest brand name in Democratic politics (and a great politician in her own right) in the primary?  Whatever your personal feelings toward him may be, you can't credibly deny that Obama is a hell of a savvy politician.  Which Dukakis & Co. were not.

    Parent
    Excuse me, (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:29:38 PM EST
    Dukakis won the Democratic primaries, coming "from out of nowhere". Carter won the Democratic primaries coming "from out of nowhere" (and embarrassed the Democratic Party for many election cycles to come when his basic political incompetence was "discovered" while he was President). And McGovern came "from out of nowhere". Etc., etc.

    When it is a "change" election, nothing is easier than for the candidate who becomes the designated "change" candidate to win, against any candidate designated as the "status quo" candidate.

    With a lot of media help -- which propelled Carter too -- Obama became that candidate.

    Obama's success, given the amount of attention he received from Day One, was hardly a measure of anything remarkable, anymore than Carter's success.

    Parent

    It amazes me (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    how many Republican talking points are bandied about.

    Jimmy Carter was screwed before he took the oath.  

    The only major mistake he made was the Iran hostages  debacle.  And had those Blackhawks not crashed he likely would have been viewed a brave and brilliant leader.  

    He was the not reason for staggering inflation or the 1979 oil crisis.

    Just simply making wildly broad comparisons between Obama and every bad Democrat of the last 40 years is hardly valuable or worthwhile.  

    Parent

    Every President has bad times (none / 0) (#122)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:39:52 PM EST
    Incompetent Presidents make malaise speeches, get attacked by killer Rabbits, and turn everyone in and out of government, in and out of the media, into people who intensely dislike them.

    Parent
    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    Yes the killer rabbit story was CLEARLY an example of his incompetence.  

    And to say that every President faces the same conditions that Carter did is downright absurd.

    Parent

    CLEARLY an example of his incompetence (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    not that I care, but I would dearly love to hear how being unfortunate enough to be attacked by a rabbit displays his incompetence.
    it that was not snark, that is, which I hope it was.

    Parent
    Pure snark (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    Frankly0 is the one who suggest that the killed rabbit was an example of his incompetence.

    Parent
    The killer Rabbit episode (none / 0) (#211)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM EST
    was damaging to Carter because he couldn't keep the story from turning into an allegory about his Presidency.

    And that was because he was an incompetent, unlikable politician -- which only became evident to many people after the bloom came off the rose.

    Obama has a bloom now, too.

    Parent

    I'm not saying that every President (none / 0) (#216)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    faces the same conditions as Carter.

    But what will Obama do, say, to stop the rise of the price of gas? Um, nothing, maybe? You think that's not going to hurt? Whether or not any President can rightly be blamed for that, it will require extraordinary personal appeal and ability to connect to and persuade voters across all demographic segments to overcome that obstacle. I don't know of another Democratic candidate with less potential in that direction than Obama.

    And Carter -- who lost to Reagan in a humiliating landslide -- was simply regarded in the end as a self-righteous, pompous scold. These personal traits had a great deal to do with his immense unpopularity and his ultimate loss. If anything, I see Obama's personal characteristics as being similar but distinctly worse.

    Parent

    Carter may not have been the reason (none / 0) (#188)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:29:29 PM EST
    for high inflation and OPEC's withholding crude oil from the market, but he certainly got blamed for it.  

    It didn't help his standing with Americans when his response to the energy crisis was to tell us to put on sweaters.  The hostage crisis was just the last straw for many voters.  

    Parent

    None of those people (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    beat anybody of the caliber of Hillary Clinton on their way.  I don't know the last time we've even seen anybody of the caliber of Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    was formidable but she had the entire DNC establishment and the MSM out to get her.  from day one.
    I still personally believe that the MSM never liked Obama as much as they hated Hillary.   they do not hate McCain.  the general election experience will be quite different.


    Parent
    THis pure garbage (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton had a dominating lead in superdelegate endorsements until March.

    But I guess you need to continue the rationalization that the only reason Hillary lost was because the mean ol MSM was out to get her.  I'd imagine it was a top priority during the weekly MSM strategy call which determines who they like and who they hate.

    Parent

    Where? They were rumored but not on the record (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    And until the convention have the prerogative of switching at any time. To claim these were a lock or use them as tangible evidence is as faulty a basis as, well, using a June poll to predict a landslide.

    Parent
    Laughable. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    Segments of the MSM, for sure (CNN was pretty friendly for a while, though).  But the Dem establishment?  Obama didn't take a superdelegate lead until what, March?  The DNC conspiracy stuff is not a credible position.

    Parent
    honest to god (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    what planet are we visiting today?


    Parent
    The planet where (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton had over 100 superdelegate endorsements before a single primary vote had been cast?

    Parent
    Revisionist history; at least wait till Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    ... honestly won something on his own merits -- without the considerable propping up of insider Dems -- before rolling out the hagiography.

    Parent
    Except I should note one big (none / 0) (#104)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM EST
    difference between Obama on the one hand and Carter, and Dukakis on the other: Carter and Dukakis got stronger as the primaries wore on. Despite being the almost certain winner, Obama only went downhill, being carried across the finish line, limping.

    Yeah, a great politician alright. If you aren't paying attention to anything.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton also came from nowhere. nt (none / 0) (#168)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    HRC was supposed to be the Divisive Polarizing (3.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    ... candidate that was too unfavorably viewed for serious consideration.

    Can't have it every which way but what Obama really said -- and presented as personal positive for himself, as if he earned it. (But that's just one of many self-endowed attributes he never actually worked for and earned.)


    Parent

    winning a primary (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    and winning a general election are not the same thing.
    not the same thing at all.


    Parent
    You're Right (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    And John McCain is about to find that out.

    Parent
    Repubs will go for obama's throat and (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    heart and will have little compunction about tearing them out.  obama has been on a cakewalk; and now he will be shown no mercy, not matter how rose-colored the glasses are that obama followers are wearing.

    Parent
    very well stated (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST
    I agree with every word.  we have no idea what is coming.  but it wont be good and it wont be fair.
    and the republicans will scorch the earth if necessary.


    Parent
    Ah yes, the mythical "fatal flaw" (4.50 / 2) (#44)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    that I've been hearing about for over a year now.  No, seriously folks, I swear it's there somewhere!  I sense it deep down in my gut!  

    [eyeroll]

    Parent

    Yeah, people like you (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    were telling us how Rev Wright and friends would of course do Obama no harm, that they represented no real electoral flaw.

    Look, how about facing facts here? We haven't heard about Rev Wright and company for a long time, and so people aren't thinking about that a lot at this time.

    I'm sure the right wing has any manner of methods to raise those doubts again, and indeed present them in ways that no Democrat was allowed to pursue.

    So why don't you keep your smugness to yourself until that day arrives, why don't you? Or is that just not the Obama way?

    Parent

    That's a good point. To my mind, the (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST
    biggest missing attack---the one that says Republicans really wanted Obama to be the nominee, is a discussion of his teen and early 20s recreation habits.

    Parent
    And here we are, months later, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    and they've done him no lasting harm; his negatives and overall poll numbers are back where they were before Wright erupted onto the scene.  Funny how that worked out, isn't it?

    Parent
    what part (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    of "they have not started yet" are you not understanding?


    Parent
    I don't think the story can have the same impact (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    the second time around.  Most voters already know it (the airwaves were saturated with it for a long while) and have made their minds up one way or another.  

    Wright's not going to be their silver bullet.  Guilt by association doesn't have a good success rate, anyway.

    Parent

    dont get me wrong (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    I dont think Wright will be any kind of silver bullet for anyone.  he will be an important part of a frame they will construct.  but there will be many other aspects to the frame.

    Parent
    This is a bit different than GBA (none / 0) (#210)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:15:18 PM EST
    Good friend, spiritual adviser, mentor, pastor, 20yr relationship. While he's already gotten some good airplay, the bits about Hillary, not so much. That could drive her fence sitters and tepid/hold the nose voters away. And who knows what else he has out there, or in his book . . .

    I think one thing he said that really pissed me off was her not having to work 2 or 3 times harder to get ahead. Especially vs Obama . . . and if you couple that with the Obamas (and their supporters) attitude towards her during the primaries . . eh. But even taking the Hillary out of the equation, from a woman's POV, that was a total BS statement. Wasn't keen on his other over the top statements, but that one really hit a nerve, especially this primary season.

    I find it interesting that when he's mentioned now on MSM, it's his "anti-American" comments they talk about, yet Obama gave "The Great Race Speech" in response. Heh.

    Parent

    Wonder if Wright still has a book (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    tour planned for fall?

    Parent
    I suspect they (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    have him booked on the first space tourism flight.  one way.
    but he doesnt have to be around.

    Parent
    Yes, I'm sure that (none / 0) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    those topics, when raised once more -- as they haven't been for many weeks by now -- will no longer affect people. And, I'm sure, when they are made part of highly coordinated and well thought out attacks -- which Hillary could never engage in as a fellow Democrat -- they will have no effect whatever.

    It's pretty to think so.

    Pretty stupid.

    Parent

    honestly (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    the idea that Hillary "exploited" any of this many weaknesses is beyond laughable.

    Parent
    The more people see of him, the less likable he is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    That's been his pattern throughout the campaign.

    Enjoy the Koolaid while it lasts. There's not enough gas to get that Boss-style machine to the WH.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    The pattern in the primary was that Obama improved his numbers almost everywhere he campaigned.

    Parent
    I keep on hearing that, over and over. (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    But Obama ended the primaries with unfavorable ratings over 50%, and losing the last two months' of primaries badly.
    What you are saying is simply false.

    Parent
    but (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    if they keep saying it long enough it will be TRUE!

    Parent
    The only primaries Obama lost badly (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    in the last two months were West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico.

    And Obama turned 20%+ polling deficits in Ohio and Pennsylvania into single-digit losses. No mean feat against a candidate as strong as Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    More fiction... he did SO well in PA and OH. (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    NOT

    Parent
    Compared to where he started out (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    he did. Which is my point - in the primaries, Obama tended to improve his numbers in places he campaigned. That fact goes against the claim that "the more people see of him, the less they like him." In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#199)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    The more people see of him, the less likable he is

    Oh, that must explain his soaring numbers among Hispanics, women, and blue collar workers - and the poll numbers in PA, Ohio, and Florida that point to a potential landslide.

    Parent

    The Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    are being awfully quiet, aren't they?  Why is that?  I don't know, but don't start buying the balloons just yet.

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Thanin on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    theyve finally realized they have nothing important to say.

    Parent
    Oh, is that the troll-rater? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    LOL! How sweet.

    I just returned from 5 days in FL (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    and the people there do seem to be in love with Obama, Republicans and Democrats.  I think the train is starting to leave the station.  BTD is probably right about the race issue as the Republicans only hope at this point. Somehow I think it is not going to work this time.  For the first time I am starting to believe that everyone has underestimated the people's desire for change.  I heard a lot of people admit that Obama was a risk but in the same breath they would say we have to take the chance, we have to send a message.  It will be interesting to watch the momentum for change carry Obama to victory unless something really devastating happens before the election, and even that might not be enough to stop Obama's momentum.  I don't think it is even about him any more.

    I cannot believe ... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:38 PM EST
    that people are again believing Obama's strong polling.

    Are our memories that short?

    aparrently they are (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    Short enough to know... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Thanin on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    the republican brand name is trash.  Personally Im starting to suspect the McSame camp is hiring the same guys that brought us New Coke.

    Parent
    You have been giving out 1 ratings (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    for mere disagreement for a while now.

    Pick one (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    Ohio, or Florida. If McCain loses either, he has essentially no chance of winning this election. I don't think he has enough money to keep PA close, defend Florida AND win Ohio. He needs a steady 7-10 pt lead in Florida, like he had before, or he's probably sunk.

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    I really don't agree with the logic that says the race card is the only chance McCain has of appealing to the white vote.  Everything is an appeal to the white vote.  Offshore drilling is an appeal to the white vote.

    It's an appeal to all the other votes too, of course, but the assumption seems to be that the numbers for Obama's black support are not malleable.  (Arguably, they're not particularly malleable in any other year either.)  That doesn't prove that McCain couldn't pick up non-black votes simply by making a non-racial, issue-based appeal.

    Obama's white vote numbers in these states (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    seem better than they ever were during the primaries. I don't know how that's possible, but there it is. Seems precarious to me.

    Parent
    Because there aren't two dems splitting the vote (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    And because unaffiliated people don't vote in primaries. Even in states with open primaries, unaffiliated people don't vote in large numbers.

    Parent
    That's not really an explanation (none / 0) (#152)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    It could be that white Democrats felt more strongly about Hillary than white voters of all stripes fell about McCain. If so, that would be a good thing. I suspect it is not so.

    Parent
    I Wondered About the 'White Men' Numbers (none / 0) (#183)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    I'm not savvy about polls, but I thought white men were the meat and potatoes of Republican voters, Those numbers look awfully close to me.

    Shouldn't McCain be carrying a larger share?

    Parent

    Isn't BTD reprising the same offensive (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    pap that the Obama camp used against Hillary?
    I want none of it.
    There are LOTS of great reasons to oppose Obama; unfortunately for McCain, there aren't many good reasons to vote for him.

    Parent
    bottom line is: (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:35:23 PM EST
    McCain is on the wrong side of almost every issue.  The only reason to vote for McCain, imho, is if you think the country's been doing great the past eight years.  McCain stands for continued strong presence in Iraq, making Bush's tax cuts permanent (actually expanding them), privatization of Social Security, expanding wiretapping power, torture, gas-tax-holiday, poor energy policy, poor environmental policy, against Roe v Wade, no talking with Iran or Syria, opposes windfall profits tax for oil companies, etc etc.  I don't see how anyone who is politically left or center could possibly countenance voting for him.

    Parent
    I saw what looked like a pattern (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    and figured I'd ask.

    As for the rest of it...whatev...

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    You doth protest too much.  Lots of people are arguing that this thing is basically in the bag already because of the overall political landscape.

    These numbers are a positive indicator for Obama. (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by demps on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    That is all. They prove nothing indisputably, only November will, but certainly such polling is positive news for the Obama campaign. Everyone should really grow up.

    Polls mean nothing (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Left of center on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    until Hillary is officially out of the VP slot. 56% of Democrats want Hillary as the VP, and after that doesn't happen, Obama's numbers till take a dive while undecideds climb.

    or, consider 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:41:07 PM EST
    Yes, it is only June 18, and so the numbers may not mean a whole lot.  But they do mean something, and being ahead in states who's EV's add up to approx 100 more than your opponent is a much better situation to be in than the reverse.

    The fact is, that Bush never trailed Kerry in polling in 2004 (which is, imho, a whole lot more significant than Carter's polling numbers over a quarter-century ago).

    Obama's in pretty good shape.  The GOP-brand is trash, Bush's numbers are record-low, Obama has a ton of money (from the most widespread base ever -- which he can hit up for more money in the general election).

    No, it's far from in the bag, and, yes Obama ought to be treating this as if it is razor close.  But you can't really ask for much better numbers than he already has.

    (As for the comment about how Obama is a worse candidate than Carter or Mondale -- do you recall how awful they were as speakers?  Further, I would point out that Obama is one of the few Dems who fight back against the GOP claim that Dems are weak on defense.

    (In sum, I just don't by that argument.  I truly believe, and have from the start, that Hillary and Obama (along with Bill Clinton) are the strongest candidates that the Dems have put up since perhaps the '60's).

    Obama is comparable to Dukakis (1.50 / 4) (#133)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    as a speaker.

    Parent
    You _must_ be kidding me! (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    Obama and Dukakis as comparable speakers?  Gee, how biased are you?  Even Fox news grants that Obama is an exciting speaker.  Dukakis was as exciting as cardboard.

    Parent
    Without a teleprompter Obama is (2.33 / 3) (#179)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    quite similar---actually, worse.
    I remember when people were lauding Bush's communicative skills too. I judge for myself.
    Obama can read from a teleprompter well.
    I'll give him that.

    Parent
    I have seen Obama speak in person 5 times (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    And he didn't use a teleprompter on any of those occasions.

    Parent
    "Hispanic" (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    It's a tougher breakdown in Florida than elsewhere, and I think you've touched on that before.

    Florida's Cuban immigrant population is not necessarily going to vote in a bloc with Florida's Mexican and Central American immigrant population, which is not going to necessarily vote in a bloc with Florida's fairly sizable community of Puerto Ricans.

    I don't think you can break out the "Hispanic" vote and have it be as meaningful in Florida as you could in, say, California--because California's Latino population is fairly homogeneous by comparison. I imagine you could break out the subgroups, but it would likely require a significantly larger sample size (and thus be more expensive) to get a statistically significant result. I'm sure the DNC and Obama are doing just that in their internal polling, but the news orgs might only do that once or twice before the election just due to the expense.

    This poll was double the sample size (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    of a normal state poll. I wish they had broken down (of Cuban descent, etc.), but even if they didn't, they should have reported a Hispanic crosstab. There are many variations within the white vote--Jews aren't given their own crosstab here, for example--and yet that is reported too.

    Parent
    Weird (none / 0) (#151)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    I wonder if they failed to ask the subgroup question. I commissioned a poll for an organization in 2006 and someone screwed up in the programming and the computers failed to prompt the phoners for a couple of the questions. It happens.

    Parent
    I suppose it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    Respondents were asked about their demographic details. There are enough hispanics in Florida for some to have said "I'm not white or black." I wonder if most hispanics just reported themselves as white. That's not something I would expect, but I don't really know.

    Parent
    Cuban registered as Repubs in FL (none / 0) (#212)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    as high as 69% as of 2007.  Would take a lot of crossover voting for Obama to swing that group.

    Dominicans in Fl:
    So, how can Dominicans be significant this year in the presidential election? There is a way! Remember Florida in the Bush-Gore race (could we forget?) If 1/3 of the Dominicans in Florida can legally vote, that's a 30,000 vote block, which has proven to be enough to swing states and elections.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#213)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    How could I forget to mention Dominicans? I used to date a Dominican. 30,000 is not a huge number, but it's nothing to be sniffed at either.

    Parent
    These Florida numbers (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by nr22 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    may force McCain to pick Crist for VP, which would prevent him from making a more aggressive pick. McCain cannot win without Florida.

    The long primary (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    I am of the mind that the long primary made the Republican talking points/platform irrelevant.  They have no chance with people being sick of the Bushies and their brand being totally marginalized the whole primary season, they are out of here.  

    Now one caveat besides slime.  I think they are working on some kind of big Middle East breakthrough, mind you, not necessarily real, but they will come up with something.  

    Or, they will throw in the towel, and rebrand after the two years of the DNC presidency.  

    dont worry to much (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    I plan to be around when it intrudes on you guys.

    Wow, I hadn't even considered that pasttime (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    But you just made my day :-)

    I'm flexing to lazy summer hours after working my @ss off on double shifts all winter.

    I never considered Freelance Pestering before but -- gosh, just thanks is all!

    Parent

    Those polls are great news. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    After the primary, I was afraid Obama might have more of an uphill battle, but apparently people really do understand the choice presented to them. John McCain would be a terrible choice for president, and most Americans can see that. The more they see of the GE, the worse it'll get for McCain. I think Obama could win a huge victory.

    This is awesome news (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    Since so many think he will win in a landslide, I think Sen. Obama should start acting like a leader NOW. On FISA, on health care reform, on Iraq, on Medicare financing. If he has this much of a following, let's see some actual leadership with policy specifics. Let's see some frickin' bold ideas. NOW.

    I want to look at something else (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    SUSA's Florida poll from February. We are really not too far from what that poll reported. If Obama were able to bump up his Hispanic anywhere close support to the levels Hillary was getting at the time, it would explain where he is now.

    Sooo (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    ARG and Q-P agree.  Does that mean that ARG is suddenly credible or that Q-P has suddenly gone in the gutter.  Or both?

    Can you glean anything at all from the fact that Q-P agrees with ARG?  Maybe ARG does the dart-board thing like Zogby and copycatted Q-P.

    Somehow this reminds me (4.87 / 8) (#22)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    of when the Laker fans were celebrating being 24 points ahead of the Celtics in the 4th game of the finals.

    Except that Obama isn't ahead by anything like the equivalent of 24 pts.

    Look, people, Dukakis was ahead by 17 pts in a poll later in the election season than this, and got trounced by 8 pts in the election -- a 25 pt turnaround.

    Can anyone act as if they understand this? Or are we all born yesterday?

    I don't see a single person (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    saying it's time to sit back and coast.  It's OK to look at the facts and say that while it's a long summer and fall, the way things are going now, Obama will win handily.  It's a harmless (and true) observation, and nobody's confusing good news with good results.  

    There's no reason to think the Obama campaign is taking their eye off the ball, meanwhile.

    Parent

    I am completely indifferent (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    to the results of any polls coming out today.  

    My prediction is based on looking at the political landscape.  

    This is not 1988.  1988 was more like 2000 than 2008.  This is more like 1932, 1952, or 1976.  

    Parent

    No, evidently this morning (none / 0) (#174)
    by Redshoes on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    but you hope's not such a bad thing.

    Parent
    A Reagan third term looked (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    a lot different than a Bush third term....Peace and apparent prosperity.

    Parent
    Is this the (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    post nomination bump we have been waiting to see?  I guess we will have to watch the trendlines to see if it is real or not.  

    Drum says it's the Unity Bounce (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by smott on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    ...commenters there asserting McCain just lost FL with the drilling stuff....

    Parent
    I'm curious (none / 0) (#135)
    by Tzal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Do you think he would have come out with his plan had he seen the FL polls today?

    Also, I'm on the West Coast. How big an issue is offshore drilling in FL?

    Parent

    its a big issue (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    but so will 5 dollar a gallon gas be a big issue.
    this issue will not ultimately be a losing one for McCain.  however shortsighted and misguided it is.


    Parent
    Fascinating. But wierd. (3.66 / 3) (#127)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    My very first presidential election (since 1956) watching from the sidelines with little or no investment in how it turns out this time.  A first for me.  So strange, this transition from lifelong activist party-enthusiast Democrat to observer.

    Somtimes it feels like watching a trainwreck in slow motion...absolutely powerless to stop it or change anything.  But now that I'm not on that train any longer, it somehow becomes 'not my problem.'

    Either way...win or lose the presidency...not my problem.  Either way, the country will be in an unimaginable mess, nearly impossible to fix for a long time coming.  Either way, whoever is president will be blamed for making things worse...or 'not better enough.'

    And if the Democrats do enjoy a landslide election across all 3 federal campaign fronts (Pres/house/senate) then we shall indeed see if they have learned anything at all since the Carter years...or even the early Clinton 90s.  Dems with complete control will, once again, have no excuses if they f&$k it up...again.

    Want to bet they won't if given the chance?  Think we'll get universal health care at last?  Don't bet the farm.


    so can we conclude that (3.40 / 5) (#6)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    white Clinton voters have pretty much turned their support to Obama, giving him that post-primary bump that many, but not all, were predicting?

    I haven't "turned my support" yet, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    although I'm committed to voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Me either (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by smott on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    VERY uncommitted and if BO polls well in PA in Nov I will be writing in Hillary

    Parent
    Are you downrating folks (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    because you think they're trolls? Or are you downrating folks cause you disagree with them?

    The latter is a no-no.

    Parent

    I say just give him all the votes he didn't earn (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    ... based on projections and what-ifs. It's clearly such a lock an actual election that actually counted votes would just be a waste of time and valuable paper goods.

    Parent
    for instance (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    just look at the 1 rating I got from Ellie for the comment at the top of this sub-thread. I have never given a 1 for a simple stratighforward comment like that.

    Yeah I've been doing it this week to deter (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    ... you and your pals from group trolling, as you've been doing to me and other posters here particularly when we post a link or quote an article in which Obama's got one of his clay feet in his mouth or is otherwise not flattering to Obama.

    Attempting to bury articles is easier than refute Obama's actual words and deeds I guess.

    Parent

    Ellie (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    Thanks for fighting the good fight.  I've gone beyond even being able to read the posts.

    Parent
    thanks for your honesty (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    At least you admit, through implication, that your rankings have no relation to what I actually wrote, but are part of some other agenda you have - I guess it must be personal animus toward me. I trust everyone will keep that in mind when they see your rankings.

    Of course, anyone who knows this site knows that it is not one of the few remaining Obama supporters who havent left in disgust yet, or havent been driven out - it is not us who form little troll rating gangs. RAther it is you, and several others who have done your valient best to make this site one that is safe for non-stop, incessant Obama-bashing.

    Enjoy your run while you can. We are at the dawn of a great new progressive era, and your legacy will be one who bitterly fought against it. But so what, no one knows who you really are anyway...

    Parent

    Oh man (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    Someone please bring me a basin.

    Parent
    That Explains It (none / 0) (#203)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    I wondered why you troll rated my comment that McCain and Obama are not equivalent nor will their SCOTUS choices be.

    There seems to be a fair amount of punitive troll rating around here.

    Just so you know, this troll never uses the "1" rating. Just the "5" when a comment seems particularly apt or a decent comment seems particularly abused.

    Parent

    I should wait for the poll people such as (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    andgarden.  But, I saw coverage in NYT of Obama working the Jewish vote in FL recently and he purportedly has staff on the ground there.

    P.S.  But wasn't the prediction that due to FL/MI rules fiasco, there was no way in h*ell Obama could win FL in the GE?

    Rumors of Obama's demise in Florida (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

    I still think it's very tough territory for him in the fall.  But just a few days ago, I thought it was unwinnable.

    Parent

    Report back after he faces the FL Rethuggernaut (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    But in the meantime, remember that polls aren't votes, and try to think of a clever new name for The Bradley Effect.

    Parent
    Yeah, um... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    let's check those numbers after the Convention, shall we? This means absolutely nothing until them.

    The Republicans have withheld their fire. They will continue to do so until Obama goes from presumptive nominee to actual nominee.

    And I believe their strategy will be more on the lines of how Obama "hates America" and is inexperienced, than on the race card. Despite what Obamans would have us believe, experience and patriotism are more important to Americans than what color skin Obama has.

    Parent

    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    I hope that the trends continue, but like the late, great Steve Gilliard said, "They (Regressives) close like Mother****ers!" so we need to breathe a little before we buy our plane reservations for the Inaguration.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    Indeed. :-)

    Parent
    It won't be the convention (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    I think they'll let him go until after the convention, building McCain's reputation as the underdog and letting Obama build up the idea that he is the inevitable winner. Then, in September, when people are actually paying attention, they're going to hit him hard with something. I don't know what. It may be a series of minor things attacking his credibility, or a major blunder or association from the past. He'll drop below McCain and the right will claim "momentum" and start pushing McCain as the less charismatic, hard fighting underdog who is winning because of his experience and character over.

    Never start a marketing campaign in June. Anything that the candidate say or do right now will be forgotten and/or ignored by people who have other things on their minds.

    Parent

    or as Bushs (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    handlers famously said in 04, "you dont roll out a new product in the summer"
    or word to that effect.

    Parent
    This is what I'm thinking will be a big play for (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    them.  There's nothing more fatal than being anti-American.

    With one exception -- I think they could play the 'affirmative action' race card.  A lot of even middle of the road folks are against affirmative action and feeling become very intense when the economy's bad and there are rumors of layoffs and such.

    The funny thing is this argument would have no traction whatsoever if they DNC hadn't 'helped' Obama with the nomination over Hillary.  I'm not sure they'd quite dare to do it, and certainly Hillary wouldn't herself help them at all, but I can see them pointing and saying -- see, here's what the Dems are all about, not helping you have a job or keeping your job, but giving the most important job away to an underexperienced person who doesn't deserve it.

    The Republicans will do exactly what the Obama campaign did -- float some trash out into the political ether a little at a time, see what seems to get some footing, refine it a bit and then come slamming out of the gate with whatever they decide would work best.

    Parent

    Sure, but all that stuff got (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    a major airing over the last two months of the Primary.....

    I think most people will reject the guilt by association stuff--if Obama himself screws up, then maybe the calculus will change...

    Parent

    How is Obama's inexperience (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    "guilt by association?"

    That's going to be the toughest nut to crack.

    Parent

    I would agree (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    The experience angle should be the toughest criticism--it is fair and not without basis....He can answer that if he does well in the debates--he is very gifted intellectually, and if he can show some spark instead of dreamy contemplation of the Music of the Spheres, and if he has a good running mate, he will be fine....

    Newt Gingrich has said that experience will not matter and the GOP had better get some sizzle or they'll be toast.

    It is the nefarious, unAmerican stuff, making him and Michelle out to be Black Panthers or aliens from Mars or Muslims, that could hurt the worst....

    Parent

    He hasn't show good debating skills so far (none / 0) (#84)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    He seems to work best off of scripted speeches and be much weaker when it comes to unscripted responses to debate questions. He's going to have to really work hard to improve that before the first debate. McCain isn't good at speeches, but he knows a lot about a lot.

    Parent
    Fortunately for our side, (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    our "Lincoln" isn't exactly up against the debating skills of an opponent like Abe had in Judge Douglas.

    In fact, I suspect McCain will struggle, in any debate format, to avoid screwing up basic concepts like Sunni-Shia.  It won't be as embarrassing as, say, Junior's first debate performance against Kerry, by far the worst debate performance by a P candidate since the much smarter Jerry Ford messed up a basic fact about Poland in 76.

    McC's just not that smart, sorry to have to tell all you TL McCainites.  

    Parent

    Low expectations for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    This is reminding me of Reagan and 1980....All the hype about not having national security experience and being a nut, and Reagan dispelled it all (or so it seemed) in one debate....

    Obama is smart and can adapt....Remember, he went up against a very good debater in Hillary, and so may not have looked all that great when compared to her, and he did improve (but had no shot in the last debate which was just plain "gotcha" for the first half.)  

    The long Primary has made him a better candidate.  

    When up against McCain, who only had to debate in the multi-person format, Obama should do well....

    Parent

    he knows a lot about a lot (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    and he is better in the debate format than Obama.
    Obama can run but he cant hide from debates forever.
    that, IMO, is McCains one chance, outside scorched earth, to turn things around bigtime.

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    and for the slow on the uptake among us, I am not "hoping" McCain turns things around.
    I am observing.

    Parent
    I really thought I could take that one (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    to the bank.

    Parent
    Partly right... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    but there is also the issue of just how blood red Florida had become politically.  That, with assuming a depressed turnout of frustrated Dems due to the rules fiasco.  The polling trends are good, I hope they remain that way.

    The media will decide this election, as they mostly do, it'll be nice to have them on our side for once.  I just can't bring myself to believe that they will continue to do so though.

    Jackson

    Parent

    I wouldn't trust these numbers in FL (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    A day never goes by when I don't have some family of neighbor in FL telling me how they 'would have voted for Clinton' but will 'never vote for Obama'.

    So just who are these people polling?  The angry among Jewish Floridians, Latinos and gays has certainly not subsided, but I think a lot of us are laying low to see what Clinton does next, and how things play out.

    Clinton had a good chance of beating McCain in FL and Obama will never win here, at least not without Clinton on the ticket.

    I've lived in FL since 1982 and I think I am right about this one.

    Parent

    D'oh BTD (none / 0) (#15)
    by smott on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    SO sorry!

    Heh... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    BAN SMOTT!!!!!!!!!  (Just snarking you-lol)

    Jackson

    Parent

    If the numbers stay this good (none / 0) (#52)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    ...until November, then I'll admit that I was wrong about Obama not being able to win. Meanwhile, I think I've pointed out before that numbers this far out mean less than nothing - they are actually misleading. Saying that Obama hasn't had any good publicity and hasn't been campaigning is misleading. He just formally won the primary, and McCain has been taking some hits about his former wife.  The good news is that Obama's primary win bounce has finally hit. The fact that the early polls didn't show a bounce was a concern.

    I suspect that a lot of people are assuming that Clinton will be the VP choice. I'm basing this on nothing other than a number of polls stating that people want Clinton as VP. I don't know who else could get him the bump that she can, but I suspect that his numbers will drop, at least briefly, if he doesn't choose her. He may wait until the convention to moderate that effect.

    I wonder what incarnation (none / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    the race card will have though.  The Obama campaign's public push to turn out the AA vote in the South will end up turning out, probably, some complicated anti-Obama/anti-black vote as well.  The Obama campaign made the point that demographically, at 40% AA, Mississippi should theoretically be winnable for Dems.  That's kind of true, so why isn't it?  

    Good to see Obama doing so well with whites.  Maybe it won't be a problem in November.  And maybe also the news media can apologize for calling voters that preferred Clinton racist, as many of them clearly now back Obama.

    And you're welcome to call folks (none / 0) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    on that. As I pointed out...it's a no-no.

    And "But they did it first!" isn't a good enough reason.

    This is (none / 0) (#222)
    by sas on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:27:24 PM EST
    terrible news.  I hope the polls aree wrong.

    NObama 08.  The man is an incompetant panderer who takes multiple sides onb any issue you can name.

    Please, No More Talk (none / 0) (#223)
    by bob h on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    of these insipid, mousey women Governors like Sibelius and Napolitano when you have the real deal available, Hillary Clinton.

    I was a Hillary supporter, but am growing less and less concerned about the outcome now.  McCain looks older and more confused by the day; he just does not have it in him to put away even a tyro like Obama.